My thoughts by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Let me say this right off the bat, I feel 2012 should be the year of the Libertarian Party. The Democrats and Republican have both failed to inspire the imagination of everyday Americans, so there should be a real opportunity for a new force in American politics. Unfortunately, I also feel that, just as in 2004, every LP will over-hype the possibility of change and disappoint everyone come Election Day. Let me go over reasons.
Lack of Pragmatism: The largest contender to challenge the two party system, and arguably the most successful third party. They are fiscally responsible, socially open-minded, and a driving force for small government. Ideologically, they are in the same category as the Free Democrats in Germany and the VVD of the Netherlands, so clearly the ideals and concepts are electable. The only problem with the Libertarian Party is the fact that it is dominated by the fringe elements of the movement. The Party tends to take the more extreme elements of the Libertarian movements and accept them as part of the platform. The fact of the matter is that to be electable, a political party has to be extremely pragmatic. For example, the VVD and Free Democrats are in favor of some immigration controls, some government subsidies, and some environmental regulations. It's just the political nature of the beast that is electoral politics; trying to offend the smallest number of people as possible.
Lack of Foresight: Another thing that is against the Libertarians is its lack of foresight in selecting it's Presidential ticket. True, in 2008 they nominated a former Republican Congressman (Bob Barr), unfortunately his record in Congress was the complete opposite of the Libertarian platform, especially with regards to immigration and drugs. It was only exacerbated by nominating a former Republican who was in favor of the war for Vice President. Now, had they nominated Mike Gravel, whose positions matched exactly to a moderate to left-wing libertarian stance, the situation would have been different. Gravel, with his experience in the US Senate and liberal voting record, could have convinced Democrats who disliked Obama to vote for him; and say had Mary Ruwart been his VP, it would have been an extremely interesting ticket. Of course that is speculation, but based on history my scenario is more likely. Remember, Ed Clark won almost a million votes in 1980 arguing that Libertarianism is low-tax liberalism; and since the 1980 elections the Libertarian Party has never found a candidate who could beat that total.Having Gravel as the nominee, Libertarians could argue that they are low-tax liberals, and could have been a major player in the election. Unless the party starts to identify itself as the "low-tax liberal party," I highly doubt it will ever truly take advantage of an opportunity.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jay Wendt only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jay Wendt is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-12 13:55:28
I agree with your conclusions; unfortunately - as they said when I was in school if you wanted partial credit for wrong answers - you showed your work, and ruined it all. It's like the stopped clock which is right twice a day, guaranteed. Right, but for the wrong reasons.
Which means it's wrong.
Lack of Pragmatism Lack of Foresight
Both of these are spot-on. Libertarians - as an organization - are neither pragmatic, nor do they do much planning. Grousing and griping, yes, and mostly reactive. What little "planning" they do is to collect around state houses to carry signs in protest of proposed gun registration laws being debated.
An uncommon number of libertarians are seemingly limited in their libertarianism to the 2ndAm. Which makes it all the more ironic that the "official" libertarian party platform is exceedingly isolationist, if not outright pacifist.
Now, while I can understand the impetus for libertarians to be so under the premise of one liberty exclusively - I am predominantly a 4thAm libertarian - as a whole we need to understand the complete sweep of liberties we took for ourselves when setting up our limited government ~230 years ago.
I can't begin to tell you how disgusted I get to hear a libertarian - rather, someone who maliciously claims to be a libertarian - spouting the brain-dead slogan: Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.
Really? Does freedom of speech imply freedom from speech as well? Do I get to whine and cry and wet my panties in public and in court rooms until I stifle your ability to say things that offend me? ...the same way anti-religionists agitated to get religiosity relegated to being a secular sin?
The only freedoms from we have are quartering and "unreasonable" search [where "reason" is directly correlated to the existence of a warrant citing probable cause]. The rest are freedoms of or to. Which means exercising those freedoms will mean that sooner or later - and probably sooner - it will entail offending someone else.
The official libertarian party platform is nonsense; has virtually nothing to do with liberty, per se, just the pet notions of a few ideologues who claim to be libertarians.
"Liberty", if it is to mean anything outside a navel-gazing class, has to be tangibly defined; ours is by the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the connection between foreign policy and "liberty". The lone implication is that if a libertarian foreign policy wished to be intrusive and bossy, then it would have to be paid for as it occurred, and not put on the Company Credit Card.
And before anyone gets all wound around the axle, the Constitution declares BOTH that Congress is the only one who can "declare war" and that the President is the only one who can wage it. The universal interpretation is that the Prez can wage war without Congressional declarations; it's time to drop the "unconstitutional" angle. If the Constitution needs clarification, then change it.
As with freedom of speech, nothing is open-ended. Slander isn't acceptable to libertarians as a free speech. Libel isn't acceptable as a free press.
But "fighting words"? The notion that "I can't control myself, so your words are to blame"? Sounds to me like the real problem is impulse control.
There is no contravention of "liberty" in banning assault weapons, or bazookas, or howitzers for private ownership and more than there is in outlawing calling random people pedophiles when they piss you off.
There is no contravention of "liberty" in limiting abortion for choice to the first 4, 5, 6 months of a pregnancy. Any woman who doesn't know she's pregnant by that time and hasn't determined whether or not she wants to remain so should probably be institutionalized for her own good.
There's no contravention of "liberty" to make recreational drugs illegal - the basis of liberty in a constitutional democratic republic is the will of the majority. If the will of the majority wants no opium dens, no "adult bookstores", no skateboarding on sidewalks, or no ultra-conformist non-conformists who can't pull up their pants and hide their skivvies, then the majority ought to get that. ...until such time as it is determined that riding skateboards at the mall, while smoking a doob with your pants down and enjoying the latest in butt-plug technology falls under a responsible reading of any of the legitimate liberties we have.
My guess is it wouldn't be.
Unfortunately, the main view that the country's political "others" have of libertarians is that we're indistinguishable from anarchists. "You can't tell me what to do, because I have liberty!!!!" Either anarchists or peevish teenagers enjoying a full-on pout.
"Liberty" isn't an excuse for "whatever goes". A responsible society has to be run responsibly, even if it does mean the occassional offense-giving. And if libertarians are ever going to play a part - a real part - they will need to drop the petulant teen routine and distance themselves from the widespread impression that they are anarchists of a different color.
My assinine brother supports ObamaCare. I called him a Socialist and he then calls me an Anarchist. He has no freaking clue what a Libertarian is! He has no understanding of what a Justifiable Tax is.
I disowned him as my brother. I said to him, "You are cut off from me as family. You will be treated like I treat every other stranger till the day I die or the day you repent."
Yep. We argued alot before I came to that course of action. I also disagree with him on a ton of other issues. He is now moving to Illinois. I use to say, "Good riddance I love ya." to everyone. I now only say, "Good riddance."
He knows my cold bitterness.
In respect to politics, he had a view of Libertarians that wasn't factual. He stereotypes and doesn't actually believe the arguments why the HC bill is unconstitutional. He doesn't respect my intellect either. He's 33 and I'm 22. I've always been treated as "little" by him.
He's an arrogant prick, just like every other Democrat in Congress at the moment. He actually rubbed the Democrat Victory in my face. I swore on Marci (our dead sister) that I would punch him in the face if he ever did that again. He hasn't done it thus far because my fists are legally lethal weapons. (I'm a liscensed boxer)
Libertarianism is misunderstood and misrepresented. And my family disfunctional and apart because some childish idiots think ALL TAXES and ALL PROHIBITION and ALL GUN LAWS and ALL SLANDER LAWS and ALL LAW RELATING TO RELIGION is unconstitutional AND MY IDIOT BROTHER BELIVES THAT IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS ARE ABOUT!
Neo-Conseratives, Atheists, Enviromentalists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Feminists are killing Constitutional Libertarianism with their theories of Social Engineering and extreme Isolationism. It's largly because of them that Libertarians have such a crappy reputation and can't get any support.
Ron Paul will never be President and Congress will always oppress The People.
